Not surprised at all that this article or like-minded one would get tons of critics. It is very difficult to explain why China should and should not adopt the western model. Democracy is not as simple as "one man one vote". It is nearly impossible for someone who was born and raised up in a developed western state to understand how a one-party system somewhat works out (when there are many problems with it) and made an unique economic progress (in the most populous country) in the world history. You might as well be confused about how come Donald Trump could be the president of the United States, or why the U.S. can afford to have a president like him.

The shortest summary for what's going on in China I've heard is "The government is made up of the people". It makes sense, really, when you've worked and lived in China for a couple years, you would be able to get to know the "politics" in everyday life, it well reflects the "politics" at the top authoritarianism.

It's sad to see someone so young and so well educated defending tyranny. If President Xi is obviously so good for China and catering to the peoples needs, then why not give the people a vote? Xi does what any good dictator does - hang on to power. The arguments in this article are pathetic apologetics for one party rule. Millions of people died in Europe fighting for freedom and democracy. Its going to take more than articles like this to persuade us of the merits of dictatorship.

I suspect why only "the West" has to be wrong with China. It's a classic rhetoric from authoritarian regimes outside Europe and North America to justify themselves. They often claim that those nosy guys from the West interfere with their version of democracy. However, democracy is a system with a very simple, and universally accepted definition - the people elect leaders and can change them if they want! For instance, North Korea contends itself as democratic because they simply have a voting system. Of course, there's no other parties than the ruling Communist party, and more importantly, it never loses power despite the failing support from the general public. On the other hand, look at its southern neighbor. Two years ago, South Korea had impeached a president for her abuse of power. South Koreans could elect a leader, but they also have the right to change one, whenever they want and need to. So, the title is misleading. It is not that "the West is wrong with China", but it must be that "dr. Keyu Jin is wrong with her understanding of democracy."

So far we've hard articles that claim that China isn't mercantilist (even though it clearly is), that China supports green energy (even though it's plagued by heavy smog), that China isn't authoritarian (even though it's got a president for life).

For someone with a PhD in Economics and a professorship at LSE, the circularities and the non-sequitors in Keyu Jin's piece are breathtaking. Her claim that "...the Chinese government is also unusually responsive to citizens on social media" is hard to swallow when the social media is tightly controlled by the Government. She also claims that there is an alternative form of accountability that Xi is subject to in the form of how the government "..responds to and protects the needs and interests of the people". The whole point is that Chinese people have very limited means of expressing their sentiments and knowing how well the Government (and the Party!) protects their interests in the absence of democratic processes like a relatively free press and free and fair elections.

An eminently unpersuasive argument full of conjecture identifying the author's settled belief. Better approach: graph those countries WITHOUT term limits against indicators of freedom, economic/social development, peace/security, rule of law, and human rights. Then do the same for countries WITH term limits. What do you believe would be the outcome?

Keyu Jin seeks to convince the West that China under Xi Jinping, who has no electoral mandate and can remain in office indefinitely, will not slide into authoritarianism. She is convinced that the West is “wrong” about her president, and tries to assure emphatically that there is no “new and unaccountable dictatorship,” with Xi Jinping becoming “Chairman Mao 2.0.” In fact her commentary is misleading at best and contradictory at worst: “It would be a mistake to assume that because China has vowed not to copy the Western political model, there are not hidden democratic processes at work.” What “democratic processes?” Democracy involves participation and representation of people. Although China rejects the “Western political model” its rural citizens find Western brands and culture attractive. The Chinese Communist Party (CPC) and the leadership rely heavily on an oppressive and fear-based form of governance to maintain power. The author writes: “While leaders are not elected, either directly or by a representative body, their performance is subject to close scrutiny – for example, by the National People’s Congress (NPC) and local people’s congresses. The Chinese government is also unusually responsive to citizens on social media.” Apparently China is going through re-centralisation, especially re-centralisation of political power. Under Xi, regulators have stepped up censorship and tightened controls on the internet and various aspects of civil society, dictating what the country’s more than 750 million net users can or cannot do online. Indeed some Western democracies have no executive term limits – the author names Angela Merkel, who is serving her fourth therm – but incumbent leaders can be unseated by voters, if they are fed up and want change. Chinese can not vote and have a say about their future, let alone to elect or oust a leader. Alexander Hamilton did agree that leaders should be given “the inclination and the resolution” to govern for a lengthy period. But only if they can “prove their merits to the people.” The author defends Xi’s approval rating, which “seems to exceed the combined approval ratings of US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May.” Does she know what happens to critics and dissidents, who dare to defy Xi in public? Would he win a landslide, should there be free and fair elections? “While there may be reason to worry that Chinese politics could change for the worse, the same is true in the United States and the United Kingdom.” Honestly citizens in the US and the UK have the power to change. It explains why these countries are still politically stable, even though Chinese leaders scoff at the chaos in the White House and the Brexit row that consumes Westminister. Europe has been ruled by left, right, centre left, centre right, populist, communist, fascist governments since the post-war era. China will mark its 70th anniversary of communist rule next year. No doubt Europeans know the difference between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. Indeed, Deng Xiaoping introduced term limits, because he wanted to “prevent the recurrence of chaotic and brutal one-man rule.” The author says “the new generation of Chinese leaders is not just well-educated, but also well aware of international norms and standards. Unlike the ideological diehards of the past, they can be expected to behave rationally, intelligently, and responsibly.” But why did they support the abolition of term limits and the collective leadership, letting one man shape the country’s future? If they really are mindful of international “norms and standards,” they should insist on building robust institutions that can function on their own without guidance and leadership of one man. She should take a look at Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium – and now Italy – that had been without a government for months, due to talks to form a coalition. But these countries did not plunge into chaos, thanks to their strong civil society and robust institutions.The West is critical of Xi cementing his grip on power and purging opponents and – according to the author – having “taken over some of the economic policy decisions that used to be the prime minister’s domain.” She sees him as “strong leader” and “not necessarily” an autocrat. Why can’t he entrust a new generation of leader to rule the country? China has a vast pool of talented and “well-educated” people. That Xi wants to make himself indispensable is an indication that he is an authoritarian leader. No doubt China is a vast country and corrupt power-holders with “vested interests” may resist reforms. “Xi knows the obstacles that blocked the implementation of his initiatives during his first term, and he is committed to overcoming them,” by having them stripped of power and exposed as corrupt.

Voting is only a democratic process to the degree that voters do not vote themselves to impoverishment. But they often do according to US observers. For example,

"And when it comes to national politics, let’s face it: Trumpland is in effect voting for its own impoverishment. " (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/opinion/trumpland-economy-polarization.html)

And of course, many besides Krugman had made similar observations. Tomes had been written on this issue.

The obvious democratic feature of China is the CCP. It is a 90 million members strong organization which encourages and trains the people on policy deliberation as well as implementation. In contrast, US citizens are assumed to be uninformed, unwise. And they are relegated to the role of casting a vote, frequently by holding their noses.

Democratic and undemocratic results are for all to see. The Chinese people trust their government. American citizens don't. Feel free to conclude that Chinese people are dumb. But a better conclusion would be this. The Chinese government has successfully translated citizens' view into public policy. It meets the expectation of the people. How about US democratic processes?

Why does PS continue to publish essays by political apologists? Merkel leads a coalition government, not a one-party state. Does Keyu Jin publish in academic journals; if so on what topic(s), as her title implies economics. Her closing sentence implies that accountability exists: accountability to whom - the people? Lol. Xi's underlings are accountable to him!

Professor, come clean with the sources of your funding. Could the CCP be one of them? Disclaimers?

How come 'western' media had so much trouble getting a comment on the issue of eliminated term limits from ordinary citizens then? Xi Doe running way from approaching journalists is not a sign of trust in the government.

Although the dangers of Xi's power should not be underestimated, good information (in English) is really necessary on how China is actually governed, the dangers it faces, and what Xi has accomplished.As the article points out, in a party system there are other forms of stability and accountability beyond term limits. Germany has seen a number of very-long-serving Chancellors. They grew up within a party and are surrounded by powerful colleagues with real influence. That is much less true in the US, where at least since John Kennedy the media president has appealed directly to the people.China is also under continual existential threat from its competitors advocating regime change. The East Coast that was once colonized, crippling China as a functioning state, is now surrounded by US military bases (Korea, Japan, Philippines, perhaps Vietnam), and the US advocates an international political position for China similar to what it had when its economy was frozen in permanent depression (1950-1978). Anything more is 'aggression' to be contained. Cambridge Analytica-type work is always being done, as can be seen on example of how Hong Kong's image for rule of law has been tarnished. In this context, Xi has had a project comparable to that of Theodore Roosevelt in the US: he has taken on the corruption of government caused by big capital, introduced measures to protect the environment and (perhaps too) aggressively attempted to gain outposts in the Pacific (South China Sea).

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.